RE: IANAL and neither are you

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Ann on this one, I think that it is difficult to claim
that a policy of not reading patents that you have good reason to
beleive may be infringed represents due dilligence.

But the position is far from unusual in US corporations. I know of
several global 500 brands where the policy is engineers do not
read patents.

Which kind of reduces the point of the exercise if patents are
meant to be a way of encouraging sharing of ideas. There needs
to be a root an branch reform of the patent system. Unfortunately
this is not currently within the scope of this group's charter.


> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>     Daniel> I have yet to meet a lawyer *anywhere* who would disagree
>     Daniel> with the sentiment expressed in that post.
> 
> If you're refering to the sentiment that reading the patent may
> increase your liability, then there appears to be one lawyer on this
> list who disagrees.
> 
> In http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04982.html Anne
> argues that _failing_ to read the patent may increase your liability.
> 
>        -roy
>